O'Hearon v. Hansen
409 P.3d 85
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- In Nov. 2015 the children’s mother died; for ~8 years the children lived with Mother and Stepfather (Rick O’Hearon), who alleged he assumed parental role and provided emotional and financial care.
- Stepfather filed a petition under Utah’s Custody and Visitation for Persons Other than Parents Act seeking sole legal and physical custody (but not termination of Father’s parental rights) and child-support/expense orders.
- Petition alleged Father (Edward Hansen) had been "absent" and only visited sporadically (about one hour per month), had left the children in Stepfather’s care since 2007, lacked stable housing, and was incapable of parenting.
- Father moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing his parental rights remained and Stepfather had not sought termination of rights; district court granted dismissal, focusing on the Act’s seventh requirement that Father either (a) "is absent" or (b) "is found by a court to have abused or neglected the child," concluding monthly visits defeated an "absence" finding.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals accepted Stepfather’s pleaded facts as true and examined whether the petition sufficiently alleged all seven statutory requirements; it reversed the dismissal, holding the petition could plausibly satisfy the Act’s elements.
Issues
| Issue | Stepfather's Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition stated a claim under the Act (all seven elements) | Petition alleges Stepfather assumed parental role, bonded with children, provided care, not compensated, relationship is in children’s best interest, and Father is absent/neglectful | Father argued decree after mother’s death returned custody to him and Stepfather cannot obtain custody absent termination of Father’s rights; alleged visits show Father is not absent | Reversed dismissal: pleaded facts suffice to potentially meet first six elements and, as pleaded, could show Father was absent when petition filed; petition survives 12(b)(6) |
| Meaning/timing of statutory phrase "is absent" in § 30-5a-103(2)(g) | "Is absent" should be read as a present-tense condition measured at filing; Stepfather alleged facts consistent with absence as of filing | District court treated absence as backward-looking, relying on Father’s past visits to find he was not absent | Court interprets "is" as present-tense; absence is a snapshot at date of filing (citing Scott reasoning) |
| Whether "found by a court to have abused or neglected the child" can be established within same Act proceeding | Stepfather alleged neglect but did not allege any prior court finding of abuse/neglect | Father argued no court finding exists | Court held the statute requires a prior court finding; allegation of neglect alone is insufficient for that alternative |
| Proper standard on 12(b)(6) review | Stepfather contended allegations must be accepted as true and construed favorably | Father urged dismissal despite pleaded facts | Court applied motion-to-dismiss standard, accepting pleaded facts and reasonable inferences; reversal required because petition could state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Bench, 193 P.3d 640 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (pleaded facts accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
- Osguthorpe v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 232 P.3d 999 (Utah 2010) (standards for accepting facts on dismissal)
- Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 393 P.3d 285 (Utah 2017) (indulging reasonable inferences for non-moving party)
- Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (motion to dismiss; relief only where nonmoving party could not be entitled under any facts pleaded)
- D.A. v. D.H., 329 P.3d 828 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (discussing Act’s relationship-focused factors)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental)
- Jones v. Barlow, 154 P.3d 808 (Utah 2007) (parents’ primary legal interest in custody)